All sorts of names have been used to describe Bain Capital. I remember one interaction I had with a fellow BMG’er who called Bain “Blood Suckers” and I replied if those who invest in Bain should be called “ticks”.
A great article lists public pensions and endowments who invest in Bain Capital and I thought I should share them with my fellow peeps.
I wonder if the Teachers Union in Ohio are aware they have invested over $700 million of their retirement in Bain. Public unions in CA, Iowa, R.I., TX, TN, and NV made the list.
Ivy League universities want a piece of the Bain action. Columbia Univ(hi Bob), Princeton, and Yale have made money from company Romney founded. Several public and private universities have invested million in Bain including MIT, Notre Dame, Univ of Michigan (best schooling the country) and others.
“Why on Earth would government-union leaders, university presidents and foundation chiefs let Bain oversee their precious assets”?
“The scrutiny generated by a heated election year matters less than the performance the portfolio generates to the fund,” California State Teachers’ Retirement System spokesman Ricardo Duran said in the Aug. 12 Boston Globe. CalSTRS has pumped some $1.25 billion into Bain.
Nothing to see here folks, nothing at all……………..
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/look_who_parks_their_cash_at_bain_88KSQrw8BXciEidja2ZQXN#ixzz25W56s8Gx
State pension plans, university endowments and a host of other organizations that benefit folks of the liberal persuasion invest in evil capitalist entities like private equity and hedge funds.
My favorite is the decrying of “big oil company” profits, those profits that flow into my IRA and 401k via the Vanguard S&P 500 mutual fund and into pension plans and endowments with either the same way or through direct ownership.
Hard to tell sometimes (like in your post) where the “us” starts and the “them” begins.
There’s a big difference between running a company and investing in one. There has been some movement lately to be more socially conscious about investing too, but that takes a while to unravel and is not always transparent, even to investors.
So you’re saying that the people that run multi-billion dollar endowments and pensions don’t realize what they’re investing in? I highly doubt it, they are looking for return.
How about the Lawrence Eagle Tribune, often derided here as a right wing mouthpiece? It’s owned by the Retirement System of Louisiana!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Newspaper_Holdings
Nothing more, nothing less, just that. Thank you merrimackguy for a great post, I too, don’t believe these liberal endowments and public pensions all have amiable dunces running them, as Christopher would have us all believe. What’s next, they too are the victims of Romney’s Evil Empire known as Bain Capital?
When seascraper said
I said
And here it is – the Wall St’R’Us talking point that’s a favorite of defenders of the rapaciously wealthy. See, corporations can do no wrong because retirement funds invest in them! That proves that everything they do is good for everyone!
they were forced to lay off hundreds of employees. I think our point is that many people benefit from various aspects of the “Wall Street” portion of the economy.
Without solid returns on investment portfolios:
Financial aid is reduced to students.
Benefits are reduced to retirees (or taxes need to go up to fund the plans if government workers) and a whole host of other factors.
If the people hired by (and reporting to the leadership of) organizations traditionally seen as more liberal (or at least Democratic) have no problem with private equity as a means to an end, where do all of you BMGers get off blasting it? Maybe you have no pension, no retirement savings, and no contact with financial institutions, but many of us do, and we can see the other side of this.
By the way the mutual fund was invented in Massachusetts.
There is still the difference between who actually decides, like Romney did pre-2002, and who is simply along for the ride. I have a small retirement account through a previous employer but I have no idea how it is invested and I’m not even sure how easy it is to find out. We probably all patronize businesses whose decisions would make us cringe and by this logic anyone with a cell phone is culpable for some pretty nasty stuff going down in Africa. We need laws against the worst offences which the market itself will not correct. Back to Bain the other difference is that the rest of the investors aren’t running for president on a largely job-destroying record claiming they can create jobs. Personally, I think all this investing to watch your money grow with no effort is a bastardization of capitalism. I prefer no stock market with the only people who own a company are the ones who put in their time and effort to building or working for the company rather than nameless, faceless investors. One more thing: my understanding is that Romney until 2002 was listed as CEO, Chairman, president, and SOLE STOCKHOLDER of Bain, which says to me that others did invest. Has Bain switched business models since then or is there another aspect I’m confused about?
Of course we can’t always know. But if you own a mutual fund you get a prospectus annually (and can access it online) that will details holdings.
Here’s some logic:
The people who run Harvard are smarter than me.
They hire the people who manage Harvard’s tens of billions, who are also smarter than me.
They all think Private Equity is a good thing.
Therefore I will defer to their intelligence and also assume PE is a good thing.
Large portfolios such as university endowments and pensions are almost always under professional management. You cannot use the choices of those managers as necessarily being micro-aligned with the political philosophies of those who might benefit from the proceeds.
Harvard’s endowment is managed by Harvard employees
http://hmc.harvard.edu/
State Pensions are usually managed by committees consisting of elected and appointed officials, often with employee representation.
Maybe you should get your facts straight before throwing “idiotic” around.
And we’re not talking “micro-aligned” (I’m guessing what that ridiculous phrase might mean). When everyone wanted to stop investing in South Africa, everyone figured out what that meant pretty quick.
You think divestment from South Africa was quick? It took years after many public protests. And exactly how long has Bain been a dirty word?
It is clear that Dan is just trying to earn points towards his BT degree.
two decades, more or less.
And you are right that organizations such as these give some broad direction to their managers on non-business “political” issues.
But it should be noted that this is a slow, if forceful, process.
One has to think of Bain as a natural and expected part of American capitalism as it currently exists. If there weren’t a Bain Capital, its niche would be filled by something equivalent. And yes, the goal of investing is to maximize capital and Bain, as a number of economists has pointed out, does about as well as an index fund. So it’s not a bad investment.
Nor should we imagine that Bain is particularly more abhorrent morally than any number of corporations, including some we might be inclined to think we like.
The Democratic campaign point is that experience at Bain provides no special qualification for being President. The goals of a Bain CEO and the President are quite different. As The Daily Show demonstrated, an astute business person shuts down money-losing divisions; the President cannot look at Mississippi, note that it receives much more in federal money than it pays, and shut it down.
*
To the extent that we think things Bain does are socially harmful, we should push regulation. Micro-boycotts and making personal statements via portfolio are just not effective. One’s time might be better spent raising the alarm about global warming or putting away one’s socks.
So in the Democratic World:
Community Activist + State Senator (for a short time)+ Senator (for a short time)= Great Qualifications
While
Corporate CEO+ Governor (not that long either)= Bad Qualifications
There’s no real “path” to President. Rich (Roosevelt, Kennedy, Bush), modest (Truman, Nixon, Clinton), in between (Carter) doesn’t matter. Jobs prior to running doesn’t matter either. You have to talk about something so you hang your hat on it. These “we were so modest” stories are making me ill. I grew up middle class, then became poor, made something of myself and now I’ve got a few bucks. So what? Would that make me a better politician? There’s no evidence to support that.
Demonstrating success as a governor (or as a big-city Mayor) is an enormously significant qualification for President, far more so than any corporate role.
My own experience in nearly forty years of corporate life (in the technology sector) is that the single most important factor in evaluating a prospective candidate is to examine their performance facing challenges similar to those of the open job. “Success” isn’t required, so long as the candidate engaged the problem — scar tissue from making mistakes is an important part of wisdom. If I was presented with a candidate who’s performance metrics were awful and who walked away from the job for a protracted “leave of absence”, I would immediately say “thanks but no thanks”.
This is why Mitt Romney is so awful in comparison to, for example, Bill Clinton and Deval Patrick. Deval Patrick phrased it well and succinctly: “Mitt Romney was more interested in having the job then in doing the job.”
He was the first Senator since Kennedy. By all accounts he did very little in either the US Senate or the IL State Senate (compare to Biden or Clinton for example).
I think Governor > Senator.
Are you forgetting Romney was governor? We haven’t had a President who wasn’t previously elected to something since Eisenhower, and rarely before that.
All governors are not the same. AK is a very small state.
TX is a very large state, but actually Bush was a constitutionally weak governor.
So if this was all about qualifications we would have to add it all into the mix.
But of course it’s not about qualifications, which is why disqualifying Romney based on Bain is not useful.
PS If you’re all about demonstrating ability while in elective office is important, then clearly Brown is much more qualified than Warren to be Senator.
You asked: “Are you forgetting Romney was governor?”. Perhaps I was too elliptical when I wrote: “If I was presented with a candidate who’s performance metrics were awful and who walked away from the job for a protracted “leave of absence”, I would immediately say ‘thanks but no thanks’.”
I was referring to Mitt Romney’s tenure as Governor. His performance metrics were awful, he bailed out after two years, and he bad-mouthed the “company” after his exit. As a prospective employer, each of the three would be at least a yellow, if not red, flag. When I see those three together, I conclude “not someone I want to hire.”
Please note that none of this makes any reference to his Bain experience (which, in my view, provides additional reasons why he is unsuited for the office he seeks).
Taking your first point — in 2008, when Barack Obama was elected, he ran against John McCain. Both Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain were Senators, and neither had served as Governor.
In my view, incumbency trumps any other factor. Mr. Obama’s performance as President trumps other elective office (Incumbent President > Governor). I’ve seen Barack Obama stand up to four years of a withering, sustained, personal, and outrageous attack from an ever-more-strident GOP. I’ve seen him demonstrate character, courage, integrity, and commitment to values that stands in stark contrast to the shallow opportunism of Mitt Romney.
Similarly, Scott Brown’s record as an incumbent trumps Ms. Warren’s political inexperience. His record is abysmal, and this factor is therefore a strong negative for him. Ms. Warren, even with her political naivete, will be a much better Junior Senator from Massachusetts. I do admit that her inexperience is a weakness in this campaign — his political “chops” surpass hers (in my estimation), and his willingness to lie makes her task harder.
As Deval Patrick observed, getting the job is not the same as doing the job. Scott Brown and Mitt Romney have both demonstrated their skills at getting the job. Each has shown that they are utterly incapable of doing the job once they have it.
or should I call you by your other names
Mr. My Guy is always better
and
Mr. I Twist Facts to make my point.
but that is only if you agree with the incumbent.
Obama had minimal qualifications to run for President, and Warren has very little to run for Senator. I’m not saying they didn’t/don’t deserve a shot. Anyone can run for anything, and if they win, they’re in.
I think the arguments that Romney (Brown now) are somehow not qualified are bogus.
By the way it seems that Bloomberg has done a good job in NYC, and all he had was a business background, but I don’t live there so I can’t talk about it in depth.
Jeesh. You offer this kind of shinola and then whine because you aren’t treated with courtesy or respect.
If Barack Obama had “minimal qualifications” to run for President, than so did his opponent. You made the claim, I rebutted it, and your response is name-calling.
When I say “Incumbency is more important”, surely you understand that I mean that it weighs more heavily than others. The awful record of an incumbent I disagree with outweighs the lack of elective experience of a challenger. The sterling record of an incumbent President I agree with outweighs even a marvelous gubernatorial career of a challenger, and in the case of Mr. Romney we know that the record of his gubernatorial career is absolutely dismal.
Where do you get the idea that name-calling is an acceptable form of discussion or debate?
Thump your chest everyone, 58% of all new jobs created under Obama are burger-flipping positions. Hope and change is having more people on social security disability than jobs created. Yet, Obama has not met with his jobs council in over six months!!! Can’t he meet them on a golf course? Talk about checking out, it’s either arrogance or incompetence.
This (of course) isn’t really true. But it is true that 58% of the new jobs are relative low wage (paying $7.69 to $13.83 an hour). I’m glad, Dan, that you recognize this as an issue. It wasn’t too long ago that you Republicans were touting the “Texas Miracle” of job creation despite the fact that large percentages of the new jobs “created” by Governor Perry were low-wage jobs with poor benefits.
Now that we are on the same page – we need more jobs that pay well and provide good benefits – maybe we can agree on a solution. The 58% study’s authors suggest the following: “Washington officials could help improve the situation by extending unemployment benefits, raising the minimum wage and enacting policies to stimulate job growth in highway construction and other infrastructure work, as well as helping prevent layoffs of teachers, police officers and firefighters.”
Sound good?
That is loser talk, or failure to have a plan. But Pelosi has said the same thing. Cities and towns are broke as is the federal government, so to add more debt by hiring more public employees, along with their gold plated benefits, doesn’t make much sense. Perhaps you will agree with my solutions.
1. Unleash our energy production and drive oil, gas, and energy down, down, and way down.
2. Universal health care will lower quality, but offload this expense from employers. Would also help cities and towns put from under their union obligations that are choking local budgets.
3. Term limits.
4. E-verification of all employees. Illegal = no job
5. Balance Budget Amendment
6. Line-item veto for Prez.
7. End tax exempt status for pigs like Harvard Univ and their $32 billion endowment fund.
8. Reverse NAFTA and GATT that have devastated our mfg jobs. Sellouts like Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, and many Republicans are to blame.
9. 20% across the board budget cuts. Means test social security, cut funding for Big Bird, u get my drift.
10. Tax reform. Lower rates but cap deductions. For example. limit charity to $10K, Mtg interest to $20K, no deductions for property taxes, etc.
1) I really don’t think there is enough oil in US territory for us to be able to drive down oil/gas prices all that much. Perhaps gas. But we really do need to recognize that oil, gas and coal are limited resources that will eventually run out. We have no choice but to explore renewable options while also lowering our consumption.
2) I think you mean single payer, but in any case it is not necessarily the case that quality would be lower. There is no strong evidence that healthcare quality is lower in Canada than in the US, for instance. Removing the insurer middleman from the equation should allow for substantial cost savings in end-user health cost. It would obviously save businesses millions of dollars, but it would cost many jobs in the health insurance industry.
3) I am not a fan of term limits and neither is anyone who is actually in office including 99.9% of all politicians who said they favored term limits before they took office. I would rather expend energy getting more people to vote, and removing the massive amount of money from political campaign spending (which unfortunately would probably require a Constitutional Amendment after Citizen’s United).
4) Aren’t employers already supposed to be verifying eligibility? What exactly are you proposing that would be different?
5) Not sure a balanced budget amendment would be a good idea. We would probably end up with the the “fiscal cliff” nonsense that Congress came up with to work around the manufactured dept ceiling crisis. I don’t think there is any problem with the government running deficits from time to time. Such an amendment would probably do more harm than good.
6) I don’t see either side wanting the other side’s President having the line item veto. There is some merit to the idea, but I don’t think it is politically possible.
7) This is kind of a nutty idea. Who exactly would lose their tax exempt status? You really need to be more specific. If you are going to take away Harvard’s tax breaks, why shouldn’t we also take them away from large religious institutions?
8) I don’t have strong feelings about NAFTA and GATT but I am sure that their negative aspects have been greatly exaggerated, so I am skeptical about throwing this out, especially since it would throw our trade relationships with the rest of the world into disarray. It is pretty clear that those agreements are not responsible for manufacturing jobs moving overseas. As long as their is cheap labor somewhere else, global companies are going to take advantage of that.
9) Across the board spending cuts? Really? That is truly lazy thinking. As an experiment, why don’t you try cutting your own expenditures actually 20% for every area of your life and let us know how that goes. Even if cutting that much is a good idea in the long run, you still wouldn’t want to do it all at once because it would drive us back into Recession for sure.
10) We can argue about the details, but I definitely agree that some sort of tax reform should be on the table. I personally think that we might be better off with a combination of a national VAT combined with a much smaller and simpler (no deductions) income tax. However, I don’t know if that is politically possible or how we would transition from what we have currently. The problem with attempts to simplify the tax code is that Congress is *really* good at making it complex again to make their lobbyist friends happy. Remember when the tax code was simplified under Reagan? How did that work out?
… gets at the real problem which is a demand glut. Nobody takes their tax cuts and expands their business in a declining market.
There is no job, anywhere, that provides special qualification for being President. None. I am not even sure that being President for the last four years necessarily provides much in the way of qualification for being President for the next four years, because the unexpected problems will be different.
What we want is the temperament, judgment, wisdom, and humility to recognize that. That is what Bush lacked, and what Obama has. Romney is a mystery to me because he has so forcefully disavowed any instance in his history in which he showed any of the above.
That if Romney was running on a platform of “I brought universal health care to MA, and I’ll make Obamacare better for the US” and “I am a social moderate” He would probably be winning this race hands down.
GW Bush tried to appear more moderate in 2000. Actually maybe he was a moderate but political considerations pushed him right.
The path to the top is not for most people and those that make it are usually not like you and I. No “regular folks” have the stamina (and negative characteristics!) necessary for the fight.
…at most any other moment in the history of this country. But with his party taken over by rabid, foaming at the mouth ignoramuses, running a campaign like you describe would cause his base to abandon him completely. I can’t wait for the vicious finger-pointing when he loses…
He would still have his likability issues, but he would probably be ahead in the polls if he was willing to stake out more moderate positions. The fact that he has not done so suggests to me that perhaps Romney was never the moderate that he portrayed himself as when he first came in as Governor here, or perhaps he overestimated the chance that he would lose to one of the other Republican contenders if he didn’t move as far right as he did. Either way, he is stuck there now.
His active support would disappear and his funding would dry up.
But he wouldn’t have received the GOP nomination, and, since he depends so thoroughly on rock-solid support, in force, by the evangelicals, he would probably be in worse shape. This will be an increasingly difficult dilemma for future GOP nominees, unless the GOP weather changes an awful lot.
However, Romney is claiming the opposite.